Tuesday, September 27, 2016

I notice that PBUS is running
a story that highlights a statement by a prosecutor saying mass incarceration
is an “urban legend.” Since PBUS chose to highlight it, you’d think that the prosecutor’s
argument has something to do with jails and bail, but it doesn’t. No, it’s
about prisons and sentencing.

I’m always confused when bail
people broaden the issue to start talking about who should be in prison and
why. You know, depending on the source, only about 3-5% of defendants
nationally will ever go to prison. The rest, having spent some short or long
period in jail, will come right back into our neighborhoods. Those of us in
bail who talk about “mass” or “over” incarceration aren’t necessarily talking
about prison, so I’m not sure why PBUS would even care. No, we’re talking about
jails – who should be in jail and why.

Frankly, I’m also confused
when people who supposedly feel strongly about the right to bail keep bringing
up reasons for why they think most people should be locked up. I don’t think that
it’s bail agents saying this, even though this latest thing came from PBUS, the
“voice of the bail agent.” I think it’s the bail insurance people, who have
somehow wrapped up bail reform with the overall dysfunction underlying the
conservative versus liberal debate in America. But really, the fact that PBUS would
say that most people need to be locked up goes to a deeper issue, which is the fact
that bail insurance people apparently don’t know very much about bail.

That prison/jail error isn’t
unique to bail insurance companies; it’s just that they should know better. For
example, not too long ago, after Dwyane Wade’s cousin was shot, a bunch of
people on a news show I was watching were complaining about sentencing. Three
or four different people lamented the fact that the suspects who shot Wade’s
cousin shouldn’t have even been out of prison to begin with – apparently, they had
been released early for different reasons. Ultimately, though, the reporter
asked someone what they were going to do to solve the problem, and he said,
“We’re going to ask for higher bond amounts.” I expect this kind of solution from
people who don’t know anything about bail.

But do you get it? It was a sentencing
issue, and people thought they could somehow solve it through bail. But you don’t
solve sentencing issues through bail. And a lot of people, including,
apparently, the bail insurance dudes, somehow think that you can. For whatever
reason, I think the insurance companies just don’t like people. They certainly
don’t like criminals. And I think they have an honest belief that these people
need to be punished for a really long time. But what they don’t know is that
bail is not the place to do that.

I can deal with a bail agent
who tells me that he believes in the right to bail so much that even the
highest risk and most violent defendant deserves to be able to mount a defense
outside of jail. What I can’t deal with is a bail insurance company
simultaneously saying that nobody is non-violent and that we need to lock
everyone up, but then fighting to release everyone so long as they have money. It’s
like they’re saying, “We really love bail, except for all those pesky
releases.”

Bail agents, I don’t think
that the insurance companies or the overpaid lobbyists they hire really even
know your core beliefs. As I’ve said before, you guys were the answer when
America faced a serious jail over-incarceration issue back in the 1800s. We’re facing a similar issue today, and you
could be part of that answer, too. Unfortunately, the insurance people don’t
know how even to begin to talk about it. Apparently, they’re thinking about
prisons, when they should be thinking about jails.

Monday, September 5, 2016

A recent article in the
Arizona Capitol Times highlighted two things that should give bail agents everywhere
concern over how the whole insurance lobbying effort is going. You can read it here.

First, when talking about the Arizona Fair Justice For All Task Force recommendations concerning pretrial justice,
the head of ABC said, “If it gets wheels, we’ll get involved.” Really? Man, I
was out there, like, three times in the last six months, and each time I was
there the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court was actually in the room
running the meetings. If you don’t think this thing has “wheels,” then I’m not
sure you know what a wheel even looks like. I think the insurance guy just
missed this one. Every time I was there, I kept thinking, “Where are all the insurance
people? It’s like they don’t even know this is going on.” I think I was right.

Second, the headline of the
story shows how the insurance companies like to make friends: “Bail Bond
Industry To Fight Change to ‘No Money’ System.” It’s the usual, “we’ll fight
them on the beaches” rhetoric, and it shows that the bail insurance companies really
have no interest in finding a realistic place for bail agents in the future. All
they know how to do is to fight to keep the status quo. It’s the only way they
won’t lose any money, and finding an alternative for bail agents that exists
within a “no” or even “less” money system is simply a no-win for these
insurance dudes. And yet, you bail agents have apparently handed over your entire
lobbying strategy to them.

For every big thing that
happens in bail, there are twenty big things that the bail insurance companies
miss. And when they find out about them (or if they find out; there’s a ton
that’s happened where they’ve missed even the chance to fight), they fight them
like crazy. Is it any wonder that word is getting out not to even speak to them
anymore? And, as I’ve often said, most people don’t separate the insurance
lobbyists from the agents. When the lobbyists vow to fight, people figure you’re
fighting too. You all get lumped into the big group labeled, “People Who Want
to Fight Us.” Do you really think anyone really wants to talk that group?

Bail agents, I still think your interests are
different from the insurance companies’, and I think that allowing these companies’ lobbyists to work only for insurance interests will ultimately put you out of business.

About Me

Hello everyone! I'm a criminal justice system analyst with 25 years of legal experience. I was editor-in-chief of the law journal in law school, and I worked as a law clerk to a federal appellate judge right after graduation. I then worked in private practice for several years in Washington DC before I came back to Colorado, where I became interested in criminal justice. I worked for both the state and federal courts of appeals as a staff attorney doing criminal appeals, and I also taught at Washburn Law School for a year before I got involved in the local criminal justice system issues in Jefferson County, Colorado. In that job I quickly realized that there was a lot of room for criminal justice reform, and that's what I've been doing ever since.

For the past several years I've been working on reforming America's traditional system of administering bail. Believe me, it really needs it. I started this blog because I was getting somewhat fed up with all of the slanted misinformation and self-serving research and analyses circulated in the field. This is my little way of chiming in.

I think I've had plenty of formal education, and I hope I'm not forced to get any more (although I'm taking two classes on Coursera!). I have a law degree, a masters of law degree, and a masters of criminal justice degree in addition to the two degrees that I got in college.

I am currently the Executive Director of a Colorado nonprofit called the Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices. It serves as my platform for performing neutral and objective research and analysis of topics relating to bail and pretrial justice. I hope that you'll get something out of this blog, which will undoubtedly contain a few things you aren't likely to find anywhere else.